Givens v. Giles et al (INMATE1)

Filing
44

ORDER overruling 43 objections; ADOPTING 42 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of the Mag Judge; ORDERING that this petition is DENIED, for the reason that it was not filed within the one-year period of limitation mandated by 28 USC 2244(d)(1), and this case is DISMISSED with prejduce. Signed by Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton, III on 6/30/11. (djy, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
JOHN HENRY GIVENS, #182504,
Petitioner,
vs.
J. C. GILES, et al.,
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:08cv565-WHA
(WO)
ORDER
This case is before the court on the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. #42),
and Petitioner’s Objections (Doc. #43).
Following a de novo review of this case, the court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that
this § 2254 petition is untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), and that under the facts of the case
equitable tolling of this limitation period is not warranted. Accordingly, Petitioner’s objections
are OVERRULED, the court ADOPTS the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and it is
hereby
ORDERED that this petition is DENIED, for the reason that it was not filed within the
one-year period of limitation mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1), and this case is DISMISSED
with prejudice.
Final Judgment will be entered accordingly.
DONE this 30th day of June, 2011.
/s/ W. Harold Albritton
W. HAROLD ALBRITTON
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.